See, I think you're giving too much credit to the mass-consuming audience. I think it is definitely possible for bad music to become popular, mostly because it has happened (in my opinion). But this requires more explanation...
Contents:
I. Individual Taste in Music
II. Proving Superiority in Music
III. Contra Genre-Based Standards
-A. Contradiction
-B. Clarification of and Apology for Previous Logically Flawed Statement
-C. Example: Metallica
IV. Nota Bene
I.
I do agree that different people have different standards for what makes a good song to them. Every individual has a unique sense of life, meaning that they all enjoy different types of art. For instance, I personally place good instrumentation over good vocals. This is why I'm able to enjoy a band like Megadeth, where the vocals really aren't anything to write home about (though I would argue that they fit the music (yes, this parenthetical is an attempt to avoid a second controversy, this one about Dave Mustaine)), or able to enjoy instrumental music, such as Liquid Tension Experiement. However, other people might place a higher stock in vocal ability, and therefore do not like music without vocals. To them, Orion is a bad song because it does not have the values that they look for in music.
II.
These individual values are why we can debate taste and why no one can objectively prove that, for instance, Rime of the Ancient Mariner or Hallowed Be Thy Name or Paschendale is the best Iron Maiden song. Sure, someone can evaluate that, based on their own standards of musical excellence, Hallowed is the best song. But they cannot present a proof that will convince another person to accept that belief.*
III.
However, I can say that I do not understand the idea of setting different standards for different genres. It seems somewhat confusing, and personally I would not term a song that annoys me to be a "good song." There is no problem in calling a song that many people enjoy a bad song, so long as you do not hold any delusions about your opinion being universal and so long as you can, if prompted, provide reasoning for that view.
-A.
Setting standards for different genres, to me, is an inherently flawed process. First, if you decide that there is a lot of good music in every genre, even genres that you dislike, you will wind up terming songs that you dislike good songs. Since there is not a universal standard for what makes good songs, you will basically be saying that in your judgement, a particular song is good although you do not like it, which is at best borderline contradiction and more likely a full-on contradiction.
-B.
This program, I will also add, can cause confusion. I will use Metallica as an example again here, but first I'll go ahead and say that I may have been unclear in my previous post when I talked about popularity being a standard of taste. My intent was not to assign you that particular viewpoint, but to ask if that was your view and to discount that idea without need for a continued back in forth in the event that it was (and also to have a refutation on the record for anyone else who holds that view, even if you were to say that it is not yours). Now that I re-read it, my intent may have been unclear and I may have entered straw an territory. If I was, and it was offensive to you, I apologize, I personally dislike when people do that to me and I'm usually better about making sure I do not do that myself.
-C.
Anyway, Metallica. Metallica is a band that has straddled genres at times. Their first five studio albums plus their ninth are metal (I'll just leave out subgenres for simplicity's sake). St. Anger is also probably metal or something. Load and ReLoad, though, are not metal, rather, they could be described as "Southern Hard Rock."
Now, I do not want to debate the specific merits of the Load twins as music (I really should know better than to bring up Metallica, since it tends to open doors, something I have done too much of today, but it's such a perfect example that I can't resist), but they are clearly a different genre than Master of Puppets or the Black Album. This causes problems if we are assuming that each genre has its own standards: What is the best Metallica song? Well, by Southern hard rock standards, you might say that it's Fuel or something of that sort. By metal standards, though, you might say it's One. How do you determine which the best Metallica song? Well, you can do that easily if you have universally applied individual standards.
IV.
*N.B: At the same time, this should not be construed as "don't judge other people's tastes, don't debate taste." You cannot prove to someone that Sanctuary is better than Call Me Maybe, but you can provide reasons why, according to a particular set of musical standards, it is. And debating taste can cause someone to see something in a song that they did not before, and to enjoy it themselves. I did not used to much enjoy Metallica's One, but after reading debates where people explained why they enjoy the song, I was able to look at it from a new perspective, and learned to enjoy it.
and in reality I know shit about cars). Different cars are developed towards different demographics and intended buyers. So naturally their specifications, designs, price and intended use vary. A ferrari's target buyer is not the same as a mitsubishi, Ford or whatever. Ferrari's are built for speed and flash, Mitsubishi's are just cheap, relatively comfortable, means of transportation but still a car that can suit its target audience needs and should therefore be assessed on partly how well it does in different fields that are relevant to the needs and expectations of the target audience. If we were to assess these cars on speed performance or the level of engine craftmanship then we are obviously going to come to the conclusion that the Mitsubishi is crap. That wouldn't necessarily be a fair assessment of the car as a whole, so you'd need to evaluate the car by other attributes that fits the intention of the car
. He's awesome, as usual.
